Communication

5.3 Communication

Good communication and information flow is vital for a project to be executed effectively and without errors. This can be a challenge in larger projects with many participants, where it can be difficult to make sure that all the participants has received the proper information and that they have understood it. Since Pipe Intervention is such a small department this is not a big problem. In this project there were incidents where the project engineers got different messages from the project manager and the department manager, however since the department is so small the miscommunication was rapidly discovered and corrected.

36

When the information is passed orally, from one person to another, the information will change because it is not communicated in the exact same way every time. The last person to receive the information might not perceive it in the same way as the distributer intended. This is especially true when the personnel that are communicating are speaking different languages.

IK has a very high fraction of personnel that speaks foreign languages and as a result all the written and a large part of the oral communication is done in English. This can potentially be a source of misunderstanding, but this is not experienced as a problem as all the participants are speaking English well and are used to communicate with each other.

5.3.1 SPOC Single point of contact

After talking to the employees it became evident that most of the information flows through the project manager. He is the main distributer of information and is also the main link between the engineering department and the workshop. He keeps track of all the projects, the schedules, and the tasks that need to be done. This makes it easier for the mechanics to know who to turn to if there is something that needs to be taken care of. If the information is flowing through several channels then it is more likely that it isn’t reaching all the recipients that are dependent on it. This is not a big problem in PI as it’s such a small department that it’s easy for the project manager to keep track of the projects and distribute the information properly.

However if the department is growing this can become an issue and it might be wise to be aware of the importance of a single point of contact.

5.3.2 Cooperation between engineering and workshop

There also seems to be an agreement in the fact that there are different ways of thinking in the engineering department and in the mechanical department. One is not necessarily better than the other only different. In the engineering department there might be more theoretical

thinking and risk assessment while the mechanics thinks more practical. This difference can be a source of great frustration in some cases, if the interface between them is direct without any overlay. If the mechanic receives a system that needs to be assembled that he has never seen before, he might not understand why it has been designed the way it has. This will also create resentment towards the engineering department, because they have little understanding of the design process.

If something goes wrong in the workshop and the equipment is not functioning as it was supposed to, it’s the mechanics that has to find a solution to the problem. At this point it is vital that the engineers are participating in finding a solution and not just disregard the project as soon as it has been handed over to the workshop. This can be very frustrating for the mechanics because they are the once that have to work overtime to get the system to work even if they haven’t participated in the design or even think it is a good solution. This was something that was observed in one of the other departments in IK but has not been that

37

evident in the PI department. This is probably dependent on the people involved, who all have different ways of working.

This difference in thinking might not only be a bad thing if you are able to exploit it correctly.

Having different perspectives and ways of thinking can also be a great advantage. By including the mechanics earlier in the design process they are more likely to understand the design choices being made. They can also contribute with ideas and feedback on how the design can be improved so they don’t run into issues in the workshop which could have been avoided if it had been discovered earlier in the design phase. This has not been the case in the PI department as the mechanics have little or no contact with the engineers during the design phase. After talking to the mechanics in the workshop it became evident that they are not satisfied with how the projects are managed and the level they are involved in the projects.

They get a weekly update on what projects are starting, but their participation stops there.

They are not involved, or consulted in any part of the design and development stages of the project. They are not involved in the project until the parts have been ordered and are starting to arrive at the workshop. Then it is their job to assemble them and test the solution before it is brought offshore for operation. There are many principles that work on paper that just don’t work as well in practice. This is something that might be difficult for the engineers to see and that the mechanics has a lot of experience in. When they are not included in the design phase there might arise issues where parts are not working as well when the concept is tested in practice. This will result in a lot of work that has to be redone and the project becomes delayed. This could have been avoided if the mechanics had been involved sooner.

It was also evident that the mechanics did not feel any ownership in the projects they are working on. They have not been able to express their opinions or concern about the project and is only set to assemble the parts and expected to fix any mistakes made by the engineers.

There was quite a bit of frustration and they were eager to point out all the things that they thought where poorly designed, instead of being proud of the system they were building. As a result I noticed that there is a lack of willingness to make the solutions work. There is used more energy in talking about how the solution should have been, instead of making the current solution work. If it does not work right away, the general attitude is that they knew it wouldn’t work and they disregard it as a failure at the first sign of problems, instead of trying to tweak it to make it work despite the drawbacks.

The downside of including mechanics in the design process is that there might be

disagreement on how the problem should be solved, which will increase the resentment and reduce the willingness to cooperate to make the design work. It is therefore important that this is managed in a good way to make sure that the two departments are contributing in a way that makes all of the participant take ownership in the project and striving to make it perform as optimal as possible.

38 5.3.3 Communication with customer offshore

When talking to the mechanics in the workshop they expressed a major concern about the communication with the customer. It is the mechanics that goes offshore to execute the operations and if something goes wrong, is not working, or is poorly planned it is the mechanics that gets the heat from the client. This might be a hard pill to swallow, especially since they have had no say in the development and the planning of the solution.

The engineers also agrees that this is a challenge and worries that the mechanics will have to answer for mistakes made by the people onshore without having the proper understanding of the reasoning behind it. They also worry that the customer might pressure IK's mechanics to deviate from the predetermined procedure to take shortcuts that would benefit them.

As a safety precaution IK has implemented a standard that if the customer has any questions or wants to change any of the operational procedures while offshore, this has to be forwarded onshore to the project manager. By redirecting the question onshore it becomes more formal, and the customer is less likely to want to go through the process, unless it is very important.

This will also enable IK to go through the required processes to make a prudent response, which is reasonable without increasing the risk.